Dismissed

Vijay Kumar and Another v. Chander Kanta

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Oct 2012CR/2448/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a contempt petition challenging orders ejecting petitioners for non-payment of rent and subletting. The Single Judge held that while the writ jurisdiction is wider than CPC Section 115, it does not permit wholesale reappreciation of evidence where findings are supported by evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; orders below remaining in force.

Vijay Kumar and Another Vs Chander Kanta — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.R.No. 2448 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

232

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

C.R.No. 2448 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.10.2012

¶6

Vijay Kumar and another

...Petitioners

Versus

Chander Kanta

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI.

¶12

Present: Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL).

¶16

This petition has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the learned courts below allowing a petition of ejectment against the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as subletting.

¶17

The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in fact the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been established. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, the landlady herself did not step in the witness box. The persons who are mentioned as being witnesses when the oral tenancy was created never appeared to support the case of the respondent and the one witness who did appear (PW2) admitted that the father of the petitioners (alleged original tenant) was in the possession of the property even prior to the date of tenancy stated to have been started and further the said witness professed ignorance about the terms of tenancy.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in fact the

¶19

C.R.No. 2448 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

father of the present petitioner was the brother of the respondent. Originally he mortgaged the property to the respondent and thereafter sold the same to her and both the learned courts below have gone into the entire gamut of facts and on a conspectus of the entire evidence held that the relationship has been duly proved.

¶22

After having been taken to the findings and the evidence on the file of the case, I regret my inability to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. In my opinion, it is not a case where the finding is vitiated on account of there being no evidence or on account of there being perverted misreading of the evidence. No doubt, jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Punjab Rent Eviction Act is wider than that of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet it still does not admit of wholesale reappreciation of evidence.

¶23

Petition is dismissed.

¶24

October 11, 2012 Divyanshi

¶25

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

Vijay Kumar and Another v. Chander Kanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar and Another v. Chander Kanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Major Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Varinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Kirandeep Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.